3 ms·

The one about the soldiers is almost the most worrying, because it doesn't even make any threats. The one about Obama seems to make a much more detailed threat

by Tichy 14y ago

The one about the soldiers is almost the most worrying, because it doesn't even make any threats. The one about Obama seems to make a much more detailed threat than the one about "burning the airport", too. Anyway, this can't be resolved in a HN thread... I must admit, I always wonder what is the better strategy: keeping your mouth shut and trying to make the best out of circumstances, or becoming vocal and trying to change things. In theory I think remaining silent is much better, but it is hard to fight those urges of talking too much. Just saying this because obviously free speech is not working out online. Actually I am not an expert on the free speech issue as practiced in the US, but doesn't it apply to opinions, mostly? You can't say "1000$ to the person who first kills person X" and then expect to get away because it was just free speech. I suppose the difference could be that expressing a death warrant is not an opinion, it is a call to action. But maybe if you phrased it differently ("soldiers should die"), you could get off the hook? Tricky subject...

jacquesm 14y ago
That's the crux right there. Free Speech does not mean at all what the OP was referring to, and I tried to make that clear using a number of examples. Yes, the United States has free speech enshrined in their basic legal concepts. But there are other countries where speech is freer than it is in the United States and there are ways to envision systems much freer still. It all goes back to that sticks and stones rhyme, words really shouldn't matter, but actions do. Because words are powerful we tend to place some limits on what combinations of words are ok and which are not. Usually the ones that are not fall under the header 'incitement', and even in those cases I'd put the bigger part of the burden on the ones that let themselves be incited than on the speaker. In your $1000 example the speaker should probably be counted as someone who contracts someone else, that's beyond mere incitement. Libel laws are funny in that way, the turn of phrase there is very subtle and can change (depending on the country and context, for instance satire) an innocent sentence into one that will get you into a lot of trouble. And it takes a lawyer and a judge to see the difference. 'You are a criminal' versus 'I think you are a criminal' can be all it takes.

by Tichy 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

That's the crux right there. Free Speech does not mean at all what the OP was referring to, and I tried to make that clear using a number of examples. Yes, the United States has free speech enshrined in their basic legal concepts. But there are other countries where speech is freer than it is in the United States and there are ways to envision systems much freer still. It all goes back to that sticks and stones rhyme, words really shouldn't matter, but actions do. Because words are powerful we tend to place some limits on what combinations of words are ok and which are not. Usually the ones that are not fall under the header 'incitement', and even in those cases I'd put the bigger part of the burden on the ones that let themselves be incited than on the speaker. In your $1000 example the speaker should probably be counted as someone who contracts someone else, that's beyond mere incitement. Libel laws are funny in that way, the turn of phrase there is very subtle and can change (depending on the country and context, for instance satire) an innocent sentence into one that will get you into a lot of trouble. And it takes a lawyer and a judge to see the difference. 'You are a criminal' versus 'I think you are a criminal' can be all it takes.